gullible, halfwit for believing in Supernatural?

There's a good chance (in my opinion) he does. Even if he thinks so, I can hardly blame him.

Perhaps this is why people can't stand him; he comes across arrogant, condescending..
But this don't bother me because the facts of Science are on his side, even when He makes mistakes he acknowledges it.

I couldn't care less what an arrogant,intolerant,uninformed, misogynist rabble rouser thinks of me because I have utter contempt for a lot of his views. That includes religion,history, proper behavior,child abuse and molestation and rape. Dawkins is wrong about many of the things he says about religion and is no expert on the subject.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2014 10:05PM by bona dea.

I couldn't care less what an arrogant,intolerant,uninformed rabble rouser thinks of me because I have utter contempt for a lot of her views.

She cannot tell me where Dawkins is wrong.

quinlansolo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the facts of Science are on his side

It is a false dichotomy to suggest that religion and science must be in opposition.

Agreed.

Oh? so science and the flood story can be synthesized? I think not.

Science and the story about the sun standing still in the sun for days can be synthesized? I think not again.

Science and religion are about as harmonious as tuna fish and raspberry jelly.

You do understand that all religions don't believe in the Bible and many of those that do do not take it literally?

The Abrahamic religions live or die by the Old testament. As soon as you give individuals the power to determine what is and ins't metaphorical the entire thing falls apart like a wet taco.

Now, if you are talking about Buddhism, sure, we can all believe that the enlightened one was concieved immaculately and sprang forth from his mother's side without touching the birth canal...Oh wait, that is subject to metaphorical interpretations as well! Damnit

Maybe we are talking about elphant gods with many arms in India?

Or are we talking about Thor and Odin?

Sorry, which religion are you saying stands up to the scientific method?

Neither Catholics,mainline Protestants or many Jews are Biblical literalists.That is a fact.I sat in mass a couple of weeks ago when the priest made it clear that Adam and Eve were not real and thebstory of the fall was not literal. No apple,snake or garden. The pope accepts evolution as fact.Marcus Borg,an Epsicopal priest doubts there was a literal resurrection much less a flood. St. Augustine, Zwingli and others were not literalists. You are looking at it as a Mormon.

The Fall is not real! Then what's the Covenant about?! Or has Catholicism gone completely mystic. If so, what about all those excommunications of mystics over the last thousand years?

Or are the Catholics now playing the Mormon game? History starts. . .Now!

There was a fall, but Adam and Eve are simply metaphorrs for that fall.

If it's all metaphorical now, you've got atheists to thank for dragging Catholicism into the 21st Century. The Pope certainly was never an early-adopter of evolution! I hope you thank atheists for all they've done to help your Church free itself. Women's rights, gay rights, and contraception are still backward in Catholicism, but don't worry, secular society will fix it for you. Just try not to be too much of an obstacle to progress.

Not really true. ST. Augusustin was no literalist and the church has often supported scientists and was building universities as far back as the middle ages

Small quibble here. The traditional story of the Buddha is that he was born a normal prince, and was conceived and born the normal way. His father received a prediction that he'd renounce the throne, so his father basically imprisoned him within the palace walls. But while there, and before he renounced the throne, he married and had a son, who also was conceived and born the normal way. I never heard of virgin birth having anything to do with Sidhartha Gautama.

You're thinking about the fundie Christians. Most of the mainstream Christians understand that much of the Bible is myth (to one degree or another) and it certainly doesn't preclude them from accepting science.

I'm not proud to admit this, but depending on the audience I would not flat out say I'm an atheist when I am at work among obvious believers. I'll use their terminology and dance around the issue. I don't need their questions or fear of me not having a god guiding my decisions. We need to get along. I don't get to be confrontational at work like I can here (thank you RfM!). They don't need to know I think they are credulous.

I might say something ambiguous about I believe in a higher power and mean the laws of physics. Depending on how I think the person defines atheist, I might not claim to be an atheist if someone insists that an atheist makes a positive claim that there is no god. That's just not the definition of atheist that fits me. I'm not about to put myself in the position of having to prove fairies don't exist.

Some people are just not important enough to explain the whole concept to about my personal type of atheism.

I'm not saying this is is admirable, but it is easiest to me living in the most Bibleish of the Bible belt.

While I don't know which people actually believe and which don't, I do know that a lot of people don't want to bother with the kind of labeling that comes with being an atheist. Not all of us are as brave as Dawkins or want to deal with the kind of crap theists put on him.

I suspect Einstein was a believer of sorts, but I can't rule out that he gave a some conflicting and ambiguous impressions about his stance on the issue. Maybe he was very sensitive to his audience and didn't feel strongly enough to press the point.

There are a few politicians who have said things that are definitely thoughts of an atheist. Most are smart enough to know to shut up about it and say "God Bless USA" now and then.

So, I can't say that everyone is being honest all the time. I know I'm a coward of sorts when surrounded by certain types of Xtians. Also, I have not had the same views my whole life on the topic. My views could change in the future. It's just not something you can count on straight answers about- kind of like answering "Does this dress make my rear look big?" I wonder if Einstein would have said, "Hell, your rear looks fine relative to the universe."

Is there anyone else who prefers avoiding the a word about themselves? I know I've had push-back from other atheists but it's exhausting trying to explain being an atheist to everyone who is blubbering on about Jesus and being saved. It's just not worth my time to me.

Good for Dawkins for having the nads and energy to speak out. I'm just not up to that kind of drama IRL. I don't agree with him about everything but I have to respect his willingness to speak out.

He is the best writer on the topic of evolution I've read. The rest is just gravy and entertainment. I feel I'm benefiting from him promoting awareness of atheists. This is an area that makes me a hypocrite- we all are hypocrites to some degree.

In his 1949 book The World as I See It, Einstein wrote: "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2014 10:14PM by thingsithink.

I imagine that living in the Bible Belt must be very difficult. I got a sense of that while traveling through North Carolina at one time. I felt that way even though I am a nominal believer. Where I live religion is generally considered to be a private matter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2014 10:17PM by summer.

I struggle with this at work as well. I am a liberal Protestant Christian, but when someone at work brings up the fact that they are CHRISTIAN it usually means conservative evangelical Christian crazy. So I often go along and tell them I'm Christian too, hoping they'll let it drop, but I have come to a point in my life and faith that I WILL disagree with the craziness. I try to be non-confrontational about it but if someone is bold enough to spout their craziness in a work situation I won't stand by and let them think I go along with it.

I also see nothing wrong with shutting it down by letting them know that I think politics and religion are inappropriate topics in the workplace. You could try that. It makes you the professional and them the fool.

Sounds like you are handling it well.

I got the stink eye when I asked them not to print out 50 color flyers for their pastor's special sermon at work.

People are curious. The questions usually come when we are in a social situation which makes it even more awkward. I think I probably get more questions than most because word got out that I had BYU on my diploma. That's something I've had to gracefully explain a few times now (I just say my parents were Mormon).

We really value diversity at work. Most know not to discuss it. The problem is that people genuinely don't suspect anyone could possibly think differently then they do here. They talk about their church stuff constantly (praise meetings, pastors, Bible study, etc.). At least Mormons know they are viewed as weird and they clam up when outsiders are around. Here, it doesn't occur to the Christians that anyone is an outsider.

I work with one Catholic guy who picked up that I might not be Baptist or Presbyterian. He's the most reasonable of the lot but weirdly he was the most inquisitive about religion. We hired a Muslim girl who lasted 9 months. She stuck to herself and I could tell she had her guard up. I heard a few comments about her religion that were not exactly nice and they stopped talking when I approached. I would not want to hear what they have to say about atheists.

It's been really interesting. I like my job a lot and I moved here by choice. I try to be as understanding as I can of their religious activities. They really wouldn't get what I am talking about.

dagny, your name sake would not be happy with you. Just saying...Be proud, shake it up! Put people back on their heals!

LOL. I know. Dagny Taggart would not behave like me.

Ayn Rand would not be inviting me to her cocktail parties, that's for sure.

The funny thing is that Atlas Shrugged is sort of a cult classic for the uber right here (anti government and all that). I don't think they get the part about the characters being hard core atheists.

That also cracks me up. the Fox News types talk about Jebus on one hand and Ayn Rand on the other. It makes me wonder if they only read the cliff notes version.

I know?! I was stunned when I heard that the right were adopting Ayn Rand as philosophical guidance. What?! It drips with outright contempt for religion. How do they skip over that?

dagny wrote: "He is the best writer on the topic of evolution I've read. The rest is just gravy and entertainment. I feel I'm benefiting from him promoting awareness of atheists."

This exactly sums up my feelings about Dawkins. If the gravy's a little too salty or a little lumpy or greasy, so what?! It's gravy for Chrissakes! He served the meat long ago.

Also, when traditionally religious people can learn to accept that atheists are moral people, and that secular morality, based on a concept of respect for life--not fear of a sky daddy--far surpasses the bases for traditional morality, then we can have peace. Thank you Dawkins for breaking up the "religion equals morality; thus morality requires loyalty tests and willful ignorance" block-headedness.

Dawkins needs to make more pedophile, rape and abortion tweets. Whaching everyone on the internet go berserk is quite entertaining.

It is to easy to blame the messenger. Or to get indignant about the message. Show me a reasoned conversation about the message and I wouldn't be surprised if most of us landed in the same place as Dawkins.

opposition.
I'd say 90% or more....Where have you been?
Read the History.
>Where I live religion is generally considered to be a private matter.
Where Must that be? Surely not Bible Belt or Texas...They want to decide for every womb



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2014 10:56PM by quinlansolo.

The mid-Atlantic, but it's also true for New England, most of Colorado, the North, the Northwest, California, much of the Southwest, and much of the mid-West. The Bible Belt (along with the Morridor) is just one part of our country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/opinion/sunday/god-darwin-and-my-college-biology-class.html

Since the passing of the Wise Ol' Cabbie, I haven't had any colleagues I felt comfortable discussing this one with. And after over 45 years of cogitating on the subject, the only thing I can conclude is that there are a lot more bat$#!%! crazy sorts among the religious than the non-religious.

But there are also more religious sorts in the first place, and anyone who's an atheist and hasn't contemplated and process their own deaths--and experienced that very real angst--hasn't truly been in touch with the whole of their inner being.

Wiser sorts than I have given this one their full kenning powers; I remember Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" where an angel answers some children's prayers for a really good individual and renders him crazy because the children prayed for his happiness.

Might be a lesson there...

Cue up also Chief Dan George's "prayer" from the great movie, "Little Big Man" asking the Great Spirit to watch over his grandson and help keep him from going crazy.

Please proceed; I'm going to go chop wood and carry water.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2014 12:32PM by SL Cabbie.

"...and anyone who's an atheist and hasn't contemplated and process their own deaths--and experienced that very real angst--hasn't truly been in touch with the whole of their inner being."

This statement really resonates with me. I don't think I've heard it put quite that way before.

Staring down death was, without a doubt, the hardest part of my becoming an atheist. It was something I had never had to do as a Mormon. It was dark and terrifying for at least a little while, but I consider it to be one of my most valued life experiences.

"because the facts of Science are on his side"

Science is a process of investigation, not a set of facts. The "facts" of science change all the time as new information is discovered. Thinking of science as an established set of facts is what gets people so mired in rigid dogma that they can't be open to real scientific investigation.

Although if you were referring to something like the age of the Earth, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's not 6,000 years old. But if you were to insist that it's a fact that it's 4.5 billion years old, I would remind you that in the 19th century, "science" thought the Earth was only a few million years old, and in the early 20th century, it was thought to be about 1.5 billion years old. Around 4.5 billion is the currently accepted age of the Earth, but that could change if new calculations are published, or a new method of dating is discovered, or some other new evidence comes to light that suggests a different number.

But having said that, I rather like Dawkins, or at least his writing. In person, he often does come across as condescending. My main objection there is that it's probably not the best way to win anyone over to his way of seeing things, if that is in fact his goal.

Well Kismet, I say you are full of baloney.
basic facts of science were here before science discovered them..
The facts of Evolution, age of earth won't revert themselves into Creationism/Intangible BS.

"The facts of Evolution, age of earth won't revert themselves into Creationism/Intangible BS."

I think you are misstating my position. Where did you get the idea that I think that evolution and the age of the Earth are going to "revert themselves into Creationism/Intangible BS"?

I absolutely accept evolution, and I think there is approximately a 0% chance that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. If you think we disagree about either, you are mistaken.

I was merely making the point that science is a method of discovery. It is not a set of facts to be memorized. It's simply the best way we have of finding out more than we currently know. Feel free to explain to me why you think that's baloney.

Kismet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I was merely making the point that science is a
> method of discovery. It is not a set of facts to
> be memorized. It's simply the best way we have of
> finding out more than we currently know. Feel
> free to explain to me why you think that's
> baloney.

I agree with your point, Kismet, and am rather dismayed that it isn't readily understood.

Science ought to be understood as a verb and not a noun. Quinlansolo is confusing reality and our scientific pursuit towards knowing reality. We presume reality doesn't change, but our knowledge of it will. And I agree, scientific endeavour is our best method for knowing more about reality.

No. No. No one misunderstands what science is. Whether the Earth is 4.5 million years old or 4.55 million years old is irrelevant.

People who dispute with scientific fact use "science changes its mind" as an excuse to throw out scientific fact. It's an excuse to create doubt where no doubt exists in order to create a space for a religious dogma. Like the way people try to use the conventional definition of a "theory" to discredit evolution as merely a "theory."

The issue is not whether the Earth is 6,000 years old, or whether it's 4.5M--more or less--years old. The real issue isn't the age, it's whether it was created out of whole cloth at any time. Kismet's right. Pointing out minor changes in the age of the Earth (a million years more or less makes a difference to the average person?), does not open up the possibility for a Biblical creation story--at any time. It must be understood that "science changes the facts" doesn't mean suddenly the BOM's all true! Or the Bible's all true! It just took awhile for science to catch up with what revealed truth already knew.

I watched his TED talk and was disappointed because he just repeated the same old boring fundamental Christianity vs. atheism debate.

I was hoping for peer reviews and white papers but he just gave his opinion.

There are people in the world who do not believe in religion and hope for further study instead its just dogma vs. atheism. I would think that in 2014 we would be going further than we are.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2014 12:42PM by rgg.

Actually, the correct term for science is "materialists" or a "materialists view", which means we are biological robots and have no free will.